I continue to hate the fact that third parties are forced to limit their iOS app's functionality if they don't want to "donate" 30% of all in-app purchases to Apple - I still remember the "good old days" when I could actually buy Kindle books in the Kindle app on my original iPad.

Apple has basically made it impossible for a 3d party content store like them to operate within iOS. I imagine that their margins on things like video rentals are much lower then the 30% Apple would require to sell things through this app.

But isn't this just a back door way to get Google content on an iPhone? I mean, Google still gets paid. I'm surprised Apple allowed this.

I think they can only really go after apps that perform transactions through their interface. If memory holds, most companies that have run afoul of this have simply moved their transactions to the web to get around it.

But isn't this just a back door way to get Google content on an iPhone? I mean, Google still gets paid. I'm surprised Apple allowed this.

Back door? How is this at all like subverting the intended purpose of the device? If I at the moment owned an iPad (used to, do not right now), I think I would be happy or at least indifferent to MORE choice for me as a consumer.

Your consternation as to why Apple is not protecting their customers from having to make decisions is really confusing to me.

There are a couple ways to look at this and I'm not sure which make sense:

--Android. Through the prism of lock-in being a pillar of Apple's strategy, since the early iPod-iTunes, this makes no sense. If you have an Android, and want to get an iPhone, you can just switch over.

--Play. With such limited functionality, is anyone with an iPhone going to say "oh, I"m going to buy movies and music through Play now." To the extent this (slightly) takes away a good reason not to, it makes sense.

There are a couple ways to look at this and I'm not sure which make sense:

--Android. Through the prism of lock-in being a pillar of Apple's strategy, since the early iPod-iTunes, this makes no sense. If you have an Android, and want to get an iPhone, you can just switch over.

--Play. With such limited functionality, is anyone with an iPhone going to say "oh, I"m going to buy movies and music through Play now." To the extent this (slightly) takes away a good reason not to, it makes sense.

Or you know, people who might have an Android Tablet and an iPhone (or iPod touch like I do). Or an iPad and an android phone. Not everybody is a single OS fanatic.

I suppose the only chance of iTunes for Android is if Apple is bought out by Google.

There are a couple ways to look at this and I'm not sure which make sense:

--Android. Through the prism of lock-in being a pillar of Apple's strategy, since the early iPod-iTunes, this makes no sense. If you have an Android, and want to get an iPhone, you can just switch over.

--Play. With such limited functionality, is anyone with an iPhone going to say "oh, I"m going to buy movies and music through Play now." To the extent this (slightly) takes away a good reason not to, it makes sense.

This is how far things have fallen in the mobile world (particularly on iOS). People are surprised when one vendor gives more of a shit about what's best for its users than about locking them into its platform.

But isn't this just a back door way to get Google content on an iPhone? I mean, Google still gets paid. I'm surprised Apple allowed this.

I think they can only really go after apps that perform transactions through their interface. If memory holds, most companies that have run afoul of this have simply moved their transactions to the web to get around it.

That's not quite true. It usually works for small apps, but not for all apps. Apple has removed apps from their store before just for providing a link to a website where the user could buy something outside of the app store.

One example of this is when Apple removed the Dropbox app from the app store because the app provided a link to a page where users could upgrade to a paid Dropbox account. Dropbox had to remove the link in order for the app to be put up back on the store. Don't underestimate Apple's determination to tie consumers (and businesses) to their products, for better or for worse.

But isn't this just a back door way to get Google content on an iPhone? I mean, Google still gets paid. I'm surprised Apple allowed this.

I think they can only really go after apps that perform transactions through their interface. If memory holds, most companies that have run afoul of this have simply moved their transactions to the web to get around it.

That's not quite true. It usually works for small apps, but not for all apps. Apple has removed apps from their store before just for providing a link to a website where the user could buy something outside of the app store.

One example of this is when Apple removed the Dropbox app from the app store because the app provided a link to a page where users could upgrade to a paid Dropbox account. Dropbox had to remove the link in order for the app to be put up back on the store. Don't underestimate Apple's determination to tie consumers (and businesses) to their products, for better or for worse.

Does that mean if Amazon have an iApp then it can't link to their online store?

But isn't this just a back door way to get Google content on an iPhone? I mean, Google still gets paid. I'm surprised Apple allowed this.

I think they can only really go after apps that perform transactions through their interface. If memory holds, most companies that have run afoul of this have simply moved their transactions to the web to get around it.

That's not quite true. It usually works for small apps, but not for all apps. Apple has removed apps from their store before just for providing a link to a website where the user could buy something outside of the app store.

One example of this is when Apple removed the Dropbox app from the app store because the app provided a link to a page where users could upgrade to a paid Dropbox account. Dropbox had to remove the link in order for the app to be put up back on the store. Don't underestimate Apple's determination to tie consumers (and businesses) to their products, for better or for worse.

Does that mean if Amazon have an iApp then it can't link to their online store?

I believe that Amazon can not offer digital products on their store because of this same rule. Apple's app submission rules do not allow for this (but again, sometimes they let it slide). As far as I know, you can not buy songs, movies, or books from the Amazon store app on the iPhone, and they do not / can not link to the browser-based store from their app. As for non-digital products, I don't know if their rules apply to those as well, but if they do, they don't seem to be enforcing them (they would be crazy to anyways).

But isn't this just a back door way to get Google content on an iPhone? I mean, Google still gets paid. I'm surprised Apple allowed this.

I think they can only really go after apps that perform transactions through their interface. If memory holds, most companies that have run afoul of this have simply moved their transactions to the web to get around it.

Moving transactions to the web isn't getting around anything. It's basically a non-starter for most people. According to the Apple rules the app can't even have a link that launches the web browers for purchases.

So basically to use an app like the Amazon Video Store App or the Google Play app the user has to know to not use the app, manually launch the browser, manually go to the website, search for the content they want, purchase it, then launch the app. Very few users will do that. They expect to be able to buy in the app.

I would like to see Google Keep come to iOS...hasn't been as simple to sync/share things like grocery lists, calendar additions, etc. through our family Google account since my wife switched to an iPhone and I'm still on Android.

People are surprised when one vendor gives more of a shit about what's best for its users than about locking them into its platform.

You can bet that Google providing iOS apps isn't motiviated by them giving a shit about what's best for its users. It's about getting their services onto as many devices as possible, as the wider the reach they have the more data they can scrape to feed their advertising machine. Apple may not let them have as much access to iOS users' data as Google would like (who's looking out for their users there?), but for a company built on how much data it can gain access to, something is better than nothing.

I continue to hate the fact that third parties are forced to limit their iOS app's functionality if they don't want to "donate" 30% of all in-app purchases to Apple - I still remember the "good old days" when I could actually buy Kindle books in the Kindle app on my original iPad.

No, you could never do that on the very first Kindle app - I also had it, You ALWAYS had to go to amazon.com to buy the Kindle book and then select which device you wanted it 'pushed' to.

However I do agree it's annoying, but Apple is trying to prevent the app store being flooded with free apps that then charge outside of the ecosystem, then they're hosting a million apps and a billion downloads a month, for free. Stuff like Dropbox not being able to give you the option to sign up is really silly, but not sure how else they differentiate between that, and say EA offering free apps and then charging you through Origin and cutting Apple out.

As long as you people keep buying into the iCrap lifestyle, Apple will continue to bend you over and not use lube, you want change in Apple's policies? LEAVE once their market share drops even more than it has already you will see them suddenly "embrace" openness

Seriously though why aren't all the 'Freemarket' heroes jumping all over the hugely anti-competitive behaviour in the mobile market place?

In a Truly Free market Apple has every right to dictate how you use their products. Should consumers dislike the idea, they will vote with their wallets by moving to opposing platforms.

Then again, this runs on a bunch of assumptions, like consumers being educated, many players offering competitive products, and commoditization of the product in question that free market-heads always ignore.

I bet Apple has lawyers good enough to write a TOS that allows content providers to offer in app purchases but still disallow it for everything else. It probably wont happen since it wouldn't benefit Apple much, just cause more competition for iTunes.

I really dislike both Apple and Googles content stores though since they're tied to a specific platform. Sure they work on ios/android but with reduced functionality and from a computer they're both limited unless you own both an Apple TV and chromecast. Being a Windows Phone user I'm left out of the party(though I knew about this when I bought it)./rant

There are a couple ways to look at this and I'm not sure which make sense:

--Android. Through the prism of lock-in being a pillar of Apple's strategy, since the early iPod-iTunes, this makes no sense. If you have an Android, and want to get an iPhone, you can just switch over.

--Play. With such limited functionality, is anyone with an iPhone going to say "oh, I"m going to buy movies and music through Play now." To the extent this (slightly) takes away a good reason not to, it makes sense.

You might be thinking of your use case. Consider a member of my household:

Do you think he is going to buy a movie on iTunes or Google Play, even if he has to use the Google Play web interface to make the purchase or rental?

iTunes: Can only watch on the iPhone or the desktop computer.Google Play: Can watch on anything.

The choice seems obvious to me in this use case. Now, if he had an iPad Mini instead of a Nexus 7 or the TV and an Apple TV instead of a Chromecast maybe he'd make a different choice.

Frankly, to me I do not know why someone would buy any content through Apple's sales channels. It all only works on Apple's stuff. It's the same with books. If instead you buy an eBook on Amazon Kindle, you can pretty much read the book on anything. If you buy the book through iTunes, you are much more limited on the devices on which you can read the book. With video content, it's pretty much the same though I'd say Vudu actually has more device penetration than anything else including Google Play.

Frankly, to me I do not know why someone would buy any content through Apple's sales channels. It all only works on Apple's stuff. It's the same with books. If instead you buy an eBook on Amazon Kindle, you can pretty much read the book on anything. If you buy the book through iTunes, you are much more limited on the devices on which you can read the book. With video content, it's pretty much the same though I'd say Vudu actually has more device penetration than anything else including Google Play.

These days, iTunes music is all (or damn near all, not sure) DRM free and will work on any system that plays them. All of the CDs I ripped using iTunes, and any of the new music I buy from the iTunes store plays just fine on my Android phone.

Frankly, to me I do not know why someone would buy any content through Apple's sales channels. It all only works on Apple's stuff. It's the same with books. If instead you buy an eBook on Amazon Kindle, you can pretty much read the book on anything. If you buy the book through iTunes, you are much more limited on the devices on which you can read the book. With video content, it's pretty much the same though I'd say Vudu actually has more device penetration than anything else including Google Play.

These days, iTunes music is all (or damn near all, not sure) DRM free and will work on any system that plays them. All of the CDs I ripped using iTunes, and any of the new music I buy from the iTunes store plays just fine on my Android phone.

So it's only books and movies where you're locked in.

You're right. Thank you for pointing that out. When I said "content" I was thinking specifically books and movies, but the term actually includes music. I should have been more clear.

I myself buy all my non-physical-copy music on iTunes, but I'd never buy books or movies there.